...
Who gives a frick? They're not making money on it and developers don't want to build for their platform. Marketshare is meaningless if it nets you nothing. And who says they even have the marketshare? They've been caught lying about "sold" numbers before, and now their "shipments" are even in question.
The whole myth that Samsung doesn't make any profit making phones is extraordinary. It is based on 'analysts' calculations. Since Samsung is very, very vertically integrated, how would the analysts have a clue as to Samsung's true margins?
Normally we take analysts spoutings with more than pinch of salt - except where they say something like Apple makes all the profits.
(Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co posted a record $4.7 billion quarterly operating profit, driven by booming smartphone sales, and will spend $22 billion this year to boost production of chips and flat screens to pull further ahead of smaller rivals.
The South Korean firm, the world's top technology firm by revenue, is locked in breakneck competition with Apple Inc in the red-hot smartphone market. Apple, overtaken by Samsung in the third quarter, regained its crown as the world's biggest maker of smartphones in the fourth quarter, with record sales of 37.04 million iPhones.
Samsung didn't give its own sales volume data, but research firm Strategy Analytics put sales at 36.5 million smartphones in October-December, with 3rd-ranked Nokia on 19.6 million. Smartphones account for around 40 percent of all Samsung's handset shipments.
...
Apple, though, is streets ahead in profitability. It generates half its revenue from the iPhone, boasts a 37.4 percent operating margin, versus Samsung's 11 percent, and its $17.3 billion operating profit is almost four times what Samsung earned from selling phones, chips, flat screens and TVs combined
Sort of puts what you claim in perspective. :rolleyes:
Strategy Analytic's estimates that Samsung's global marketshare was 35.2% vs Apple's 16.6% for Q3. Marketshare isn't everything, but the BS you keep spouting that Samsung isn't making any profit is just that - BS!.
The whole myth that Samsung doesn't make any profit making phones is extraordinary. It is based on 'analysts' calculations. Since Samsung is very, very vertically integrated, how would the analysts have a clue as to Samsung's true margins?
Normally we take analysts spoutings with more than pinch of salt - except where they say something like Apple makes all the profits.
Strategy Analytic's estimates that Samsung's global marketshare was 35.2% vs Apple's 16.6% for Q3. Marketshare isn't everything, but the BS you keep spouting that Samsung isn't making any profit is just that - BS!.
Exactly. How on earth can they say samsung "ships" 50 million phones per quarter, especially s3 and notes, when even samsung's dubious "milestones" announcements contradicts that?
That is pretty much all the reports have been saying over the last year or so, that Samsung is gaining huge marketshare. Are you claiming that the reports are BS? (and maybe they are skewed, I wouldn't know) I realize that their gain probably isn't based only on their iClone handsets but could be the el-cheapo devices. They want us to believe that it's their flagship phones, but I'm not sold.
I think a number of important facts are being ignored by many in these forums.
One reason that Samsung is willing to fight it out with Apple may indeed arise from the exceptionally strong patent portfolio and R&D activities that Samsung has been maintaining for many years. If you take the number of utility (!!) Patent applications in the US in 2011 as a measure of innovative strength in the technology sector it paints quite a different picture to that of which many here are trying to convince themselves. Reality distortion loses against facts every time.
It will probably surprise you to learn that Samsung has been nr 2 in the US in terms of the number of patent applications per year for the last 6 years, second only to IBM which has been nr 1 for 19 !! Years. Have any of you noticed that companies don't tend to try patent attacks on IBM because IBM is famous for its portfolio strength and its aggressiveness in defending its patents.
So far from being an imitator, samsung can probably be described as a major innovator (using the patent stats as a measure.).
By comparison, Apple with its 670 odd patents, nr 39 in the top 50 list, is a minor innovator.
Given the rapid pace of development, it would not surprise me to find that samsung is confident that it can beat apple on all levels. It certainly would have the staying power to fight this out. Apple is also far more vulnerable to injunctions and possible losses in litigation. If, for example Apple should win in the last instance against Samsung in the current litigation and succeed to get the S3 blocked from the US market, it would not be a disaster to Samsung.
On the other hand, if Apple lost and the iPhone 5 got blocked, its curtains for apple (Think stock value).
Considering the stakes, even if Apple should succeed to sustain, for example, the 1 Billion Judgement against Samsung ... .that's pocket money. And it may be prudent to remember, the Appeals process has not even started. Its going to be years before the check gets written (if ever), and it may well be substantially less than the $1 Billion that Apple is celebrating at the moment. Remember .... the show's not over till the fat lady sings.
Intelligent people would be more reserved and much more cautious before declaring a winner in this war. The odds would seem to favour Samsung in the long haul. Apple hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of matching the R&D output from Samsung. Despite what many may WANT to believe, Apple has been WEAK in R&D in comparison to much of the competition.
Currently Apple is relatively strong in the US, but really ONLY in the US.
And finally, Samsung is not the only contender that Apple needs to watch. The Mainland chinese HUAWEI and a couple of others are also a force to be reckoned with. They have a home-market advantage in China that Apple has no hope of matching (politics will see to that, but the level of innovation alone may be sufficient.)
Like the dot.com Bubble ... Apple may burst. Its a high stakes world and it isn't really too smart to declare war on an opposition that understands warfare better than the initiator does, and has staying power.
Apple is a business. The board of directors and executives of the company have a fiduciary obligation to profit their investors. Without investors Apple wouldn't exist.
Apple doesn't care about investors(broad sweeping generalisation here), but there would be no Apple without a profitable business. And SJ knew this. So Apple sees its fiduciary obligation to its customers and not its investors - to make profit to enable continuation of R+D. Certainly I agree with the second part of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, that's not entirely true.
...it's just 99% true. without investors Apple would never have got past the first Apple to produce the Apple][. Without investors Apple would have gone under with the Apple|||. It was investors that gave $$$ to Apple to enable them to lavish huge amounts of time on R+D with the Macintosh and Lisa. Steve Jobs made a fortune because of investment in Apple, which allowed him to establish Next and Pixar. It was these opportunities that kept SJ vibrant. It was investment by investors that kept Apple going through the wilderness years.
So I think you could say with almost absolute confidence that the investors mattered. The difference that sets Apple apart, and this is an important distinction that most people/investors don't get, is that Apple puts the customers' experience first. Because they put the customers' experience first Apple expects to be paid well. And they do. This in turn has rewarded investors with high capital growth.
So in the end, while Apple does not put the investor first there would almost certainly be no Apple without investors.
As an American, I am very proud of our ability to create such great products which are used around the world - they are also copied by companies as a cheap alternative.
Huh? You do realize these products are build with of the shelve components, don't you? It's all in the software. And the people writing the software come from all over the world. I suggest you watch this 18 minute YouTube video "Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action" as to understand that anyone can create the products Apple makes.
On the other hand, if Apple lost and the iPhone 5 got blocked, its curtains for apple (Think stock value).
Wow. Just wow. You think if the iPhone wasn't on sale in the US the whole company can close shop? It's true that the iPhone largest market is the US, and it's true that the iPhone is the most profitable product Apple has. But to be so narrow minded to think that...well, wow.
Considering the stakes, even if Apple should succeed to sustain, for example, the 1 Billion Judgement against Samsung ... .that's pocket money. And it may be prudent to remember, the Appeals process has not even started. Its going to be years before the check gets written (if ever), and it may well be substantially less than the $1 Billion that Apple is celebrating at the moment. Remember .... the show's not over till the fat lady sings.
What does that mean? Seriously.
Intelligent people would be more reserved and much more cautious before declaring a winner in this war.
War? This is business. Apple feels that their inventions are copied. Weather right or wrong, they feel the need to defend that. I think 'war' is way over the top.
The odds would seem to favour Samsung in the long haul. Apple hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of matching the R&D output from Samsung. Despite what many may WANT to believe, Apple has been WEAK in R&D in comparison to much of the competition.
If you go by the amount of patents, yes, weak indeed. I think it's more about the quality of their inventions. The surprise element. The 'rethinking'.
Like the dot.com Bubble ... Apple may burst. Its a high stakes world and it isn't really too smart to declare war on an opposition that understands warfare better than the initiator does, and has staying power.
Apple didn't declare 'war', companies copying their innovative patents did.
Not in the slightest. Why would you even say this?
Well,
What does apple stand to gain from these, realistically ?
I have not seen any realistic ban or fine yet between these 2 companies. Somehow they get away every time they appeal.
Sure they got a 1.05B verdict, which samsung will appeal. From all other cases it is mighty hard for apple to end up with 1.05B. Even if they did samsung elec takes home 12-15Billion in profits every yr.
So i dont see the point of all this. Samsung will spend almost nothing in avoiding this ban, then they will argue the profits cannot be only because of this one infringement. And the judge will either ask samsung to pay a joke of a fine or dismiss the case all together.
In a different angle, apple really does not even need money. courts take million years to come to a decision and "ban" a device only for the company to issue a simple SW update. Say if courts were to ban the company completely if found infringing then they might change. Now, samsung/apple can copy anyone and fight a court case for 2 years (by then the product will be out of shelves) and the court will "ban" them. Waste of time/money !!
On the other hand, if Apple lost and the iPhone 5 got blocked, its curtains for apple (Think stock value).
Wow. Just wow. You think if the iPhone wasn't on sale in the US the whole company can close shop? It's true that the iPhone largest market is the US, and it's true that the iPhone is the most profitable product Apple has. But to be so narrow minded to think that...well, wow.
Quote:
Considering the stakes, even if Apple should succeed to sustain, for example, the 1 Billion Judgement against Samsung ... .that's pocket money. And it may be prudent to remember, the Appeals process has not even started. Its going to be years before the check gets written (if ever), and it may well be substantially less than the $1 Billion that Apple is celebrating at the moment. Remember .... the show's not over till the fat lady sings.
What does that mean? Seriously.
Quote:
Intelligent people would be more reserved and much more cautious before declaring a winner in this war.
War? This is business. Apple feels that their inventions are copied. Weather right or wrong, they feel the need to defend that. I think 'war' is way over the top.
Quote:
The odds would seem to favour Samsung in the long haul. Apple hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of matching the R&D output from Samsung. Despite what many may WANT to believe, Apple has been WEAK in R&D in comparison to much of the competition.
If you go by the amount of patents, yes, weak indeed. I think it's more about the quality of their inventions. The surprise element. The 'rethinking'.
Quote:
Like the dot.com Bubble ... Apple may burst. Its a high stakes world and it isn't really too smart to declare war on an opposition that understands warfare better than the initiator does, and has staying power.
Apple didn't declare 'war', companies copying their innovative patents did.
Well you can think whatever you like. I don't agree that it's narrow minded to speculate that if the flagship product of a company in the luxury toys market gets wiped out from its main market (USA) that that would have a catastrophic effect on "market value" or the that the stocks would plunge. But its speculation. Secondly, it was mainly an allusion to the vulnerability of Apple in contrast to Samsung with respect to the overall product portfolio. Thirdly, what makes Apple the most valuable company in the world is actually the irrationality of the stock market. The stock value has very little to do with the "quality" or "market share" or whatever, but rather on the expectation of future profits.
"What does that mean? Seriously."
Sorry, I'll have to answer with small words and simple logic. Fact is that the $1 Billion judgement is not by any means a done job. Many aspects may turn out differently. For example, the size of the damages award may be revised downwards. This seems quite likely given the Jury calculations. Secondly, the Appeals court has already fired a warning shot at Lucy Koh's rulings, so it's an open question how the court will rule when the appeal is finally judged. It is simply too early in the process to predict what the end result will be.
I would agree that use of the term "war" is over the top. But Jobs did say that he was willing to spend every cent of Apple's cash and go "thermonuclear" to destroy Android. So its a small step to conclude that Jobs did in fact regard it as a war. You could call it a death match if you want to play with words. Doesn't change the fact that its an insane thing to do. If it's a matter of "Business", then Apple will become less aggressive and be more willing to enter cross-licensing and other non-belligerant alternatives to litigation crusades. Time will tell. The point is that senseless litigation on all fronts is a loser's game. If you bothered to actually look at the top-50 list I referred to, you will have noticed that the majority of companies in the list are Asian. Like it or not, that is where the innovation is taking place.
Now China is an interesting case. Firstly, technology patenting by Chinese companies is really just starting. There is an incredible output of top graduates from the chinese technological universities, and investment by top chinese companies in R&D is far outstripping the US and the EU. They are currently in an exponential growth phase and the key players are increasingly looking to global markets. This is where the fight for technological dominance will be decided. It will be interesting to see if South Korea and Taiwan can keep up. I wouldn't be so silly as to predict an outcome there, but I would not hesitate to say that US technological domination has already peaked and is declining, at least in the consumer toys segment. Other than Apple, the "west" has nothing significant to show. You may have a different opinion. It would be idiotic to think that the Chinese hitech companies will stand idly by and watch apple steal their domestic market. Get real ! Its not going to happen.
Apple is not particularly good at winning in non US markets. In the Chinese market they will have to produce completely new products specifically for the chinese market. They have NEVER even attempted to do that. Take Siri as an example. It works in the US to a degree. In the UK it's pretty much useless because it doesn't handle the idiom, the dialect. In Germany it's completely irrelevant. So it's an enormous challenge to put voice-recognition onto a chinese cultural environment. Americans have NEVER succeeded in that respect. Most of the Americans that I have anything to do with (and I work in the HQ of an international pharma multi in Germany, there are loads of americans ... and about 1% of them bother to learn enough German to buy a cup of coffee. So multicultural development is not a strongpoint.
But the main thrust of my argument was simply to point out that hysterically repeating the bullshit that "samsung only copies" "samsung doesn't innovate" is simply reality distortion. Now you may wish to believe that the "quality" of Apple's utility patents is definitive. I don't think there's too much (ie ANY) evidence that that is a true statement. If you look at their design patents. these are frequently crap and have a high failure rate. PLEASE don't come and start arguing that the latest "design" patents (rectangle with rounded corners etc) are anything but ridiculous. That one has been thrashed to death.
In the end you can believe anything you like. The earth is flat and at the center of the universe. Or that the bible says that god created the universe in 7 days. Or that Steve Jobs is the reincarnation of god . Whatever makes you feel warm and cosy. But remember, there is a real world out there.
You have the right to be as delusional as you want to be. For me its just entertaining. Like "reality TV".
If you take the number of utility (!!) Patent applications in the US in 2011 as a measure of innovative strength in the technology sector it paints quite a different picture to that of which many here are trying to convince themselves.
Are you saying that as long as you have a lot of patents that it's ok to infringe on other people's patents?
Comments
http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/14/google-vs-samsung/
Their profits are within a factor of two of Apple.
The whole myth that Samsung doesn't make any profit making phones is extraordinary. It is based on 'analysts' calculations. Since Samsung is very, very vertically integrated, how would the analysts have a clue as to Samsung's true margins?
Normally we take analysts spoutings with more than pinch of salt - except where they say something like Apple makes all the profits.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-samsung-idUSTRE80P1KY20120127
Sort of puts what you claim in perspective. :rolleyes:
Strategy Analytic's estimates that Samsung's global marketshare was 35.2% vs Apple's 16.6% for Q3. Marketshare isn't everything, but the BS you keep spouting that Samsung isn't making any profit is just that - BS!.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121025007005/en/Strategy-Analytics-Samsung-Captures-Record-35-Percent
Originally Posted by cnocbui
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121025007005/en/Strategy-Analytics-Samsung-Captures-Record-35-Percent
So what percentage of the industry are these profit numbers?
And samsung has announced that it will issue a sw update to avoid the ban. More money/time wasted !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
The whole myth that Samsung doesn't make any profit making phones is extraordinary. It is based on 'analysts' calculations. Since Samsung is very, very vertically integrated, how would the analysts have a clue as to Samsung's true margins?
Normally we take analysts spoutings with more than pinch of salt - except where they say something like Apple makes all the profits.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-samsung-idUSTRE80P1KY20120127
Sort of puts what you claim in perspective.
Strategy Analytic's estimates that Samsung's global marketshare was 35.2% vs Apple's 16.6% for Q3. Marketshare isn't everything, but the BS you keep spouting that Samsung isn't making any profit is just that - BS!.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121025007005/en/Strategy-Analytics-Samsung-Captures-Record-35-Percent
Exactly. How on earth can they say samsung "ships" 50 million phones per quarter, especially s3 and notes, when even samsung's dubious "milestones" announcements contradicts that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
no. pretty much the same. show evidence or go home.
A bit cranky are we?
Well here's one... A quick search revealed a ton of reports.
http://bgr.com/2012/08/14/mobile-phone-q2-2012-market-share-sales/
That is pretty much all the reports have been saying over the last year or so, that Samsung is gaining huge marketshare. Are you claiming that the reports are BS? (and maybe they are skewed, I wouldn't know) I realize that their gain probably isn't based only on their iClone handsets but could be the el-cheapo devices. They want us to believe that it's their flagship phones, but I'm not sold.
edit: spelling.
Originally Posted by dinmab
More money/time wasted !!
Not in the slightest. Why would you even say this?
I think a number of important facts are being ignored by many in these forums.
One reason that Samsung is willing to fight it out with Apple may indeed arise from the exceptionally strong patent portfolio and R&D activities that Samsung has been maintaining for many years. If you take the number of utility (!!) Patent applications in the US in 2011 as a measure of innovative strength in the technology sector it paints quite a different picture to that of which many here are trying to convince themselves. Reality distortion loses against facts every time.
http://ificlaims.com/index.php?page=misc_Top_50_2011
It will probably surprise you to learn that Samsung has been nr 2 in the US in terms of the number of patent applications per year for the last 6 years, second only to IBM which has been nr 1 for 19 !! Years. Have any of you noticed that companies don't tend to try patent attacks on IBM because IBM is famous for its portfolio strength and its aggressiveness in defending its patents.
So far from being an imitator, samsung can probably be described as a major innovator (using the patent stats as a measure.).
By comparison, Apple with its 670 odd patents, nr 39 in the top 50 list, is a minor innovator.
Given the rapid pace of development, it would not surprise me to find that samsung is confident that it can beat apple on all levels. It certainly would have the staying power to fight this out. Apple is also far more vulnerable to injunctions and possible losses in litigation. If, for example Apple should win in the last instance against Samsung in the current litigation and succeed to get the S3 blocked from the US market, it would not be a disaster to Samsung.
On the other hand, if Apple lost and the iPhone 5 got blocked, its curtains for apple (Think stock value).
Considering the stakes, even if Apple should succeed to sustain, for example, the 1 Billion Judgement against Samsung ... .that's pocket money. And it may be prudent to remember, the Appeals process has not even started. Its going to be years before the check gets written (if ever), and it may well be substantially less than the $1 Billion that Apple is celebrating at the moment. Remember .... the show's not over till the fat lady sings.
Intelligent people would be more reserved and much more cautious before declaring a winner in this war. The odds would seem to favour Samsung in the long haul. Apple hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of matching the R&D output from Samsung. Despite what many may WANT to believe, Apple has been WEAK in R&D in comparison to much of the competition.
Currently Apple is relatively strong in the US, but really ONLY in the US.
And finally, Samsung is not the only contender that Apple needs to watch. The Mainland chinese HUAWEI and a couple of others are also a force to be reckoned with. They have a home-market advantage in China that Apple has no hope of matching (politics will see to that, but the level of innovation alone may be sufficient.)
Like the dot.com Bubble ... Apple may burst. Its a high stakes world and it isn't really too smart to declare war on an opposition that understands warfare better than the initiator does, and has staying power.
Makes for good entertainment :-)
100% ?
Originally Posted by cnocbui
100% ?
… What percentage of the mobile phone industry's profits do Samsung and Apple each have, given these numbers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775
Apple is a business. The board of directors and executives of the company have a fiduciary obligation to profit their investors. Without investors Apple wouldn't exist.
Apple doesn't care about investors(broad sweeping generalisation here), but there would be no Apple without a profitable business. And SJ knew this. So Apple sees its fiduciary obligation to its customers and not its investors - to make profit to enable continuation of R+D. Certainly I agree with the second part of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, that's not entirely true.
...it's just 99% true. without investors Apple would never have got past the first Apple to produce the Apple][. Without investors Apple would have gone under with the Apple|||. It was investors that gave $$$ to Apple to enable them to lavish huge amounts of time on R+D with the Macintosh and Lisa. Steve Jobs made a fortune because of investment in Apple, which allowed him to establish Next and Pixar. It was these opportunities that kept SJ vibrant. It was investment by investors that kept Apple going through the wilderness years.
So I think you could say with almost absolute confidence that the investors mattered. The difference that sets Apple apart, and this is an important distinction that most people/investors don't get, is that Apple puts the customers' experience first. Because they put the customers' experience first Apple expects to be paid well. And they do. This in turn has rewarded investors with high capital growth.
So in the end, while Apple does not put the investor first there would almost certainly be no Apple without investors.
If Samsung has any innovative patents then why did it make it a corporate strategy to copy the iPhone?
Their patents are mostly of the inner workings of cell phones not utility or look.
Huh? You do realize these products are build with of the shelve components, don't you? It's all in the software. And the people writing the software come from all over the world. I suggest you watch this 18 minute YouTube video "Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action" as to understand that anyone can create the products Apple makes.
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Huh? You do realize these products are build with of the shelve components, don't you? It's all in the software.
Wait, I can buy an iPhone case, battery, and logic board at True Value and build myself an iPhone? What am I waiting for?!
It's all in the software.
That's stolen, too; it's all good.
Wow. Just wow. You think if the iPhone wasn't on sale in the US the whole company can close shop? It's true that the iPhone largest market is the US, and it's true that the iPhone is the most profitable product Apple has. But to be so narrow minded to think that...well, wow.
What does that mean? Seriously.
War? This is business. Apple feels that their inventions are copied. Weather right or wrong, they feel the need to defend that. I think 'war' is way over the top.
If you go by the amount of patents, yes, weak indeed. I think it's more about the quality of their inventions. The surprise element. The 'rethinking'.
Apple didn't declare 'war', companies copying their innovative patents did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not in the slightest. Why would you even say this?
Well,
What does apple stand to gain from these, realistically ?
I have not seen any realistic ban or fine yet between these 2 companies. Somehow they get away every time they appeal.
Sure they got a 1.05B verdict, which samsung will appeal. From all other cases it is mighty hard for apple to end up with 1.05B. Even if they did samsung elec takes home 12-15Billion in profits every yr.
So i dont see the point of all this. Samsung will spend almost nothing in avoiding this ban, then they will argue the profits cannot be only because of this one infringement. And the judge will either ask samsung to pay a joke of a fine or dismiss the case all together.
In a different angle, apple really does not even need money. courts take million years to come to a decision and "ban" a device only for the company to issue a simple SW update. Say if courts were to ban the company completely if found infringing then they might change. Now, samsung/apple can copy anyone and fight a court case for 2 years (by then the product will be out of shelves) and the court will "ban" them. Waste of time/money !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha
On the other hand, if Apple lost and the iPhone 5 got blocked, its curtains for apple (Think stock value).
Wow. Just wow. You think if the iPhone wasn't on sale in the US the whole company can close shop? It's true that the iPhone largest market is the US, and it's true that the iPhone is the most profitable product Apple has. But to be so narrow minded to think that...well, wow.
Quote:
Considering the stakes, even if Apple should succeed to sustain, for example, the 1 Billion Judgement against Samsung ... .that's pocket money. And it may be prudent to remember, the Appeals process has not even started. Its going to be years before the check gets written (if ever), and it may well be substantially less than the $1 Billion that Apple is celebrating at the moment. Remember .... the show's not over till the fat lady sings.
What does that mean? Seriously.
Quote:
Intelligent people would be more reserved and much more cautious before declaring a winner in this war.
War? This is business. Apple feels that their inventions are copied. Weather right or wrong, they feel the need to defend that. I think 'war' is way over the top.
Quote:
The odds would seem to favour Samsung in the long haul. Apple hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of matching the R&D output from Samsung. Despite what many may WANT to believe, Apple has been WEAK in R&D in comparison to much of the competition.
If you go by the amount of patents, yes, weak indeed. I think it's more about the quality of their inventions. The surprise element. The 'rethinking'.
Quote:
Like the dot.com Bubble ... Apple may burst. Its a high stakes world and it isn't really too smart to declare war on an opposition that understands warfare better than the initiator does, and has staying power.
Apple didn't declare 'war', companies copying their innovative patents did.
Well you can think whatever you like. I don't agree that it's narrow minded to speculate that if the flagship product of a company in the luxury toys market gets wiped out from its main market (USA) that that would have a catastrophic effect on "market value" or the that the stocks would plunge. But its speculation. Secondly, it was mainly an allusion to the vulnerability of Apple in contrast to Samsung with respect to the overall product portfolio. Thirdly, what makes Apple the most valuable company in the world is actually the irrationality of the stock market. The stock value has very little to do with the "quality" or "market share" or whatever, but rather on the expectation of future profits.
"What does that mean? Seriously."
Sorry, I'll have to answer with small words and simple logic. Fact is that the $1 Billion judgement is not by any means a done job. Many aspects may turn out differently. For example, the size of the damages award may be revised downwards. This seems quite likely given the Jury calculations. Secondly, the Appeals court has already fired a warning shot at Lucy Koh's rulings, so it's an open question how the court will rule when the appeal is finally judged. It is simply too early in the process to predict what the end result will be.
I would agree that use of the term "war" is over the top. But Jobs did say that he was willing to spend every cent of Apple's cash and go "thermonuclear" to destroy Android. So its a small step to conclude that Jobs did in fact regard it as a war. You could call it a death match if you want to play with words. Doesn't change the fact that its an insane thing to do. If it's a matter of "Business", then Apple will become less aggressive and be more willing to enter cross-licensing and other non-belligerant alternatives to litigation crusades. Time will tell. The point is that senseless litigation on all fronts is a loser's game. If you bothered to actually look at the top-50 list I referred to, you will have noticed that the majority of companies in the list are Asian. Like it or not, that is where the innovation is taking place.
Now China is an interesting case. Firstly, technology patenting by Chinese companies is really just starting. There is an incredible output of top graduates from the chinese technological universities, and investment by top chinese companies in R&D is far outstripping the US and the EU. They are currently in an exponential growth phase and the key players are increasingly looking to global markets. This is where the fight for technological dominance will be decided. It will be interesting to see if South Korea and Taiwan can keep up. I wouldn't be so silly as to predict an outcome there, but I would not hesitate to say that US technological domination has already peaked and is declining, at least in the consumer toys segment. Other than Apple, the "west" has nothing significant to show. You may have a different opinion. It would be idiotic to think that the Chinese hitech companies will stand idly by and watch apple steal their domestic market. Get real ! Its not going to happen.
Apple is not particularly good at winning in non US markets. In the Chinese market they will have to produce completely new products specifically for the chinese market. They have NEVER even attempted to do that. Take Siri as an example. It works in the US to a degree. In the UK it's pretty much useless because it doesn't handle the idiom, the dialect. In Germany it's completely irrelevant. So it's an enormous challenge to put voice-recognition onto a chinese cultural environment. Americans have NEVER succeeded in that respect. Most of the Americans that I have anything to do with (and I work in the HQ of an international pharma multi in Germany, there are loads of americans ... and about 1% of them bother to learn enough German to buy a cup of coffee. So multicultural development is not a strongpoint.
But the main thrust of my argument was simply to point out that hysterically repeating the bullshit that "samsung only copies" "samsung doesn't innovate" is simply reality distortion. Now you may wish to believe that the "quality" of Apple's utility patents is definitive. I don't think there's too much (ie ANY) evidence that that is a true statement. If you look at their design patents. these are frequently crap and have a high failure rate. PLEASE don't come and start arguing that the latest "design" patents (rectangle with rounded corners etc) are anything but ridiculous. That one has been thrashed to death.
In the end you can believe anything you like. The earth is flat and at the center of the universe. Or that the bible says that god created the universe in 7 days. Or that Steve Jobs is the reincarnation of god . Whatever makes you feel warm and cosy. But remember, there is a real world out there.
You have the right to be as delusional as you want to be. For me its just entertaining. Like "reality TV".
Have fun :-)
Originally Posted by dinmab
What does apple stand to gain from these, realistically ?
Righteousness.
So i dont see the point of all this.
Well, create something and you'll start to get it.
In a different angle, apple really does not even need money.
Do I even need to type the quote?
Waste of time/money
I'll just go steal your child, then. You don't seem to care too much about getting it back.
Are you saying that as long as you have a lot of patents that it's ok to infringe on other people's patents?
Using the stats of how many things they copied though, most people would describe them as an imitator. Being an innovator doesn't diminish that fact.
How big a change has each of their respective innovations brought?
Why? They don't steal other people's IP on purpose.
As well as the small matter of actually generating more profit than anyone else:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-25/tech/31396858_1_iphone-business-profit-apple